Since when did Sony first party games destroy MS first party games in visuals or performance? Gears 5 looks as good as anything I’ve played on my PS4 Pro and I’ve played all the big PS4 games on it minus Uncharted 4. Horizon 4 looks spectacular on my Scorpio whether it’s in frame rate mode (which I play on) or the even better looking resolution mode.

It’s almost as if developers have been dealing with scaling their games and engines for like... decades or something, and know what they are doing.

I like how they say how lack of power will limit game innovations. I don't think there has been much game innovation lately. I wouldn't blame lack of power for it either. It more has to do with the fact that they are running out of ideas almost turning into Hollywood bankrolling off super hero movies past two decades.

Yes for sure, and X360 also looked better than TLOU, right?

LoU wasn’t the best looking PS3 game imho. There were plenty of better looking third party titles, or at the least, more impressive. And those developers had to make their games for two consoles and a myriad of PC configurations. And the same holds true for this gen. Multiplat developers who have had to develop now for five different Xbox/PS4 consoles plus loads of PC builds have done amazing work. Either way you didn’t answer the question. 

Neither PC GPUs nor PC graphic cards are individually custom built. They are also mass produced and the manufacturers also profit from economies of scale.

How many PS4 Slim APUs are produced every year? 15 - 17 million?

How many PS4 Pro APUs are produced every year? 2 - 4 million?

How many XBO S APUs are produced every year? 5 - 8 million?

How many XBO X APUs are produced every year? 1 - 2 million?

Well, in the last years, Nvidia also sold tens of millions of GP106-GPUs (GTX 1060) and probably more than 10 million GP106-GPUs (GTX 1070, 1070 Ti and 1080).

The TU106 sales (RTX 2060 - 2070) and TU116 sales (GTX 1650 Super - 1660 Ti) will probably both reach 10 million next year, TU104 sales (RTX 2070 Super - 2080 Super) will probably reach 10 million next year.

And of course the graphic cards manufacturers like ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte also buy these chips in bulk and will get bulk prices.

Of course Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo will get even better prices, but it ain't so that the graphic card manufactures only buy a few hundred or thousand of each GPU model.

It's not about how many particular GPUs they produced/sold last year. In the PC market you have new GPUs/architectures coming out almost every year and trends change constantly. The same Navi chip is here to stay for at least 5 years, without any major changes in demand. This unchanged design helps a lot in bringing the single unit price down as you can forecast and plan production for years to come with ease. Each new chip introduces (or may introduce, depends how much it differs) new manufacturing process and that costs a lot of money. In other words, uncertainty creates cost. Also, no single 3rd party PC parts manufacturer have such purchasing power as Sony. They can easily sign 5 year contract for delivery of 50+ million Navi chips, with a very high degree of certainty. I honestly doubt that Asus, MSI and Gigabyte combined, could do the same thing for their 20 series GPU, or any single SKU in that matter.

So that's great just talking about theoretical numbers but what I'm saying is there are plenty of other things that will effect achieving those numbers or higher. Currently all we have to compare to are AMD 12nm cards, so we aren't even factoring in transistor density over the 12nm process into the new CPU and GPU for these consoles. This will definitely allow for higher clock speeds and performance, not to mention the higher memory bandwidth these systems should have over current cards...

No.

It's called turning those effects off to increase CPU headroom or shifting those effects over to another processor. - The game fundamentally operates the same.

Take for example GPU accelerated particle effects, typically these were done on the CPU (Actually, most games still put it on the CPU), that removed the burden form the CPU in idTech powered games so that the CPU can be tasked with other jobs or makes it easier to hit 60fps if you are CPU and not GPU bound.

Conversely, many games use the CPU for post-process effects, like Anti-Aliasing, Blur and more, you can change the type of AA your game uses in order to reduce the CPU burden.

Console games are all about a game of "Compromise". - There is always something you can reduce/remove/move to another chip in order to reduce your hardware demands, which is why developers are able to take a game that runs on a 2.3Ghz 8-core Jaguar CPU in the Xbox One X and scale it downwards to the 1Ghz 4-Core Switch CPU.
It's fundamentally the exact same game.

Good. Because if you were asserting that Lockhart will be equivalent to the Playstation 4 in overall capability based on flops alone... Then you would certainly be highly misinformed.

Scaling up happens all the time. PC thrives on it.

Anaconda is using the exact same hardware base as the Playstation 5. Thus if Anaconda is a glorified PC, then so is the Playstation 5.

I would argue that the consoles are just semi-custom PC's at this point anyway, when looking at it from a hardware perspective.

I would love for the umbilical cord to the Xbox One to be cut off. - But that likely has a customer base that could be 50~ million by the time Anaconda is fully entrenched in the market place. (I.E. A few years from now.)
You want those customers (and more) to transition over, Microsoft is good at making money so I am sure they will make the best decision for themselves either way.
Personally I couldn't care. PC games aren't any "lesser" for supporting old hardware, the PC still has the best looking games on the market if you have the hardware to push it.

Flops are a useless metric, more so with next-gen consoles. You need to stop hanging off it.

For example, Flops doesn't account for the Ray Tracing performance of chips, for all we know Anaconda may have twice the Ray Tracing performance as the Playstation 5... And Ray Tracing is going to be the "big thing" next console generation.

It's because you are basing all your assumptions on flops.

We get new GPU's every year.
Architectures however last allot longer than that.

VLIW/Terascale lasted from 2007 with the Radeon 2900 series right up to the Radeon 6970 in 2011, 4 years isn't bad.
GCN went from a Radeon 7970 in 2012 right up to Radeon RX 580 in 2018, 6 years isn't bad.
Heck, it could be argued that NAVI is still GCN based as it still retains GCN's instructions, it's a hybrid GPU between GCN and RDNA 2 essentially.

As GPU's get larger, architectures get more complicated, the longer an architecture is likely to stick around as AMD and nVidia need to get a return on their R&D investment.

In general console manufacturers pay a lump sum to AMD for their console GPU design, then they pay for the manufacturing, AMD will assist (In return for some money) to shrink their designs down to a smaller manufacturing node.

The profit margins though on AMD's console chips is actually really small compared to a high-end GPU, but boy did they help keep AMD afloat during it's bulldozer days.

In saying that... There are roughly about 75-100~ million discreet PC GPU's sold per year split between nVidia and AMD that accounts from the lowest-end to the highest-end, the bulk of which are low-end and mid-range parts.

12nm is just a refined 14nm process. It's just advertising at it's best.
The Radeon RX 590 is AMD's only consumer 12nm GPU, which is basically an overclocked Radeon RX 580 which in turn is an overclocked Radeon RX 480... Normally a new node should bring with it better power characteristics, but the RX 590 still consumes more power anyway.

The problem is Microsoft thrived to achieve parity across their platform, they will have the games look and feel the same thing while the difference is only on Resolution and frame rates (that's why their Scarlet campaign is just  4k and 60fps) . It means same effect but more on better hardware and  better resolution and faster frame rates. And to make thing worse is Xbox One as baseline on designing games. It means all creativity of games are limited with Xbox One Jaguar, There are so many can be achieved then just physics and streaming assets and data and logical process on CPU. By limiting on Jaguar game developer can just aimed at notebook power level from 2012,  Anaconda power  and PC  Spec 2020 power  will be left unused.  

There are to many factor why using Xbox one as baseline hampering the technology on Anaconda , not include SSD that will not just used as loading benefit or streamingassets, but for other innovation on games design. PC had SSD a long time ago but the benefit is doesn't exist except for fast loading times that's because no games are design based on SSD. The same thing will happen with Anaconda if the games are not based on SSD. 

PC consist of many spec configuration , thus any platform that has many configuration = PC.  Games for Anaconda are based on Xbox One to be upscale to Xbox One, Xbox One S, Xbox One X, Lockhart, Anaconda + not include all the PC with Nvidia, Intel GPU and AMD GPU from 2013 GPU. 

Yes they will be using Directx to scale the games, which is that's the point. Direct X is a PC 

PS5 will be only made using PS5 as baseline , in short PS5 is a traditional consoles and Xbox is just PC.  

Even 100 Million PS5 gamers , not all 100 million buy games. Also all gamers will be moving away anyway if there is new product.  That's a natural law for human. Why would they insist on old hardware, they can just use Xcloud can they? Or they are not confident with their  Xcloud strategy ? 

We don't know how long Microsoft is going to keep the Xbox One, Xbox One S and Xbox One X around... Just like how we don't know how long Sony will keep the Playstation 4, Playstation 4 Slim and Playstation 4 Pro around.

The Playstation 4, Playstation 4 Slim and Playstation 4 Pro will likely continue to receive games until the userbase on the Playstation 5 is sufficiently large and could even take a couple of years like the Jump between the Playstation 3 to the Playstation 4.

Yes the PC includes many configurations, but those "many configurations" doesn't stop the platform from having the best looking games on the market.

And Sony will have OpenGL/Vulkan or both to scale the games, which is a PC API as well.

The Playstation 5 and Anaconda will also have another low-level API for the developers who wish to use it.

Both platforms are the same in that regard.

Shit. Sony will likely leverage *Nix as it's Operating System which is also PC based, just like Xbox will leverage Windows.

The platforms have more in common than you realize when they both source their technology from the same place, the PC.

I think I will wait to see what happens rather than assert anything as definitive before the consoles have even released.

We don't know if the Playstation 5 will have 100~ million gamers. It could pull a WiiU or a Vita in sales numbers. (It's unlikely however.)

Yes, gamers will be moving to the new product, that is just common sense, especially as the old product gets depreciated.

Sony also has an xcloud alternative, Playstation Now, both approaches aren't going to displace the current norm anytime soon, but they are growing in importance, it's always a good idea to never put all your eggs in a single basket.